De Laney v. Hart
| Decision Date | 11 December 1929 |
| Docket Number | 480. |
| Parties | DE LANEY v. HART. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; Sink, Special Judge.
Controversy without action by E. S. De Laney against R. H. Hart. From the judgment, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Restrictions in deeds held not enforceable by other owners, where there was no development according to general plan and original corporation grantor had dissolved.
This is a controversy without action heard upon a statement of facts agreed. C. S. § 626.
Plaintiff contends that upon the facts agreed he is entitled to a decree for the specific performance of a contract in writing by which: (1) Plaintiff agreed to sell and convey to defendant a certain described lot of land, in fee simple, without restrictions, except as to its occupancy or ownership by persons of the colored race and (2) defendant agreed to purchase from plaintiff the said lot of land, and to pay to plaintiff for the same the agreed purchase price upon the conveyance to him by plaintiff of the said lot of land in accordance with said contract.
Plaintiff has tendered to defendant a deed properly executed, with the usual covenants of warranty, sufficient in form to convey to defendant the said lot of land in fee simple, without restrictions, except as to its occupancy or ownership by persons of the colored race.
Defendant has declined to accept said deed, and has refused to pay to plaintiff the purchase price for said lot of land, in accordance with the terms of the contract.
Defendant contends that plaintiff cannot perform his contract with respect to the conveyance to him of said lot of land, for the reason that plaintiff holds his title to said lot of land subject to certain restrictions set out in the deed by which said lot of land was conveyed to plaintiff, and that plaintiff cannot convey the same free from said restrictions.
Upon the facts agreed, the court was of opinion, and so held, that plaintiff can convey to defendant said lot of land, free from restrictions, as to its use or otherwise, except as to its occupancy or ownership by persons of the colored race.
From judgment in accordance with the opinion of the court that defendant specifically perform his contract with plaintiff defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
Cansler & Cansler, of Charlotte, for appellant.
J. L De Laney, of Charlotte, for appellee.
Plaintiff's title to the lot of land which he has contracted to sell and convey to defendant, without restrictions, except as to its occupancy or ownership by...
To continue reading
Request your trial